More HVX truth

[Brian Sargent]

I think I've found the fly in the ointment. According to this simulation, the loss of resolution can be attributed to the use of B+W UV filters


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/l...ges/120958.jpg

[Scott Auerbach]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

My sentiments exactly, Mark. I was excited about the F350 too until I realized it was shooting HDV 4:2:0. Bigger, better chips with more res but same HDV workflow issues.

That IS the $30k question: which "big" camera is the best way to go? HPC2000 looks good on specs, but no VFR mode. Sucks.

Many of us seem to be hitting the same wall; I'm going to keep the HVX for the mobility and VFR (and mini DV capability, which is fine for some of my clients). Renting a Varicam as needed, and around the end of the year I'll re-evaluate the new mid-price 2/3" HD marketplace. With me it's less a detail issue than the depth of field nightmare on a 1/3" chip.

If you're cool with staying completely tapeless (it's actually more of a problem with my clientele than I expected, so I'm looking to add a tape DVCProHD camera to the mix), I'd keep my eye on the Silicon Imaging unit. It's a sweet-looking piece. Still too new to know for sure, but it looks like it could really turn the world on its ear.

[Mark Williams]

Brian,

You made a good point. Although I think some goofed up with the photos at B&H. I had to exchange 3 top of the line UV filters before I got a satisfactory one. I know many here advocate always having some type of filter on to protect the lens but there is also a small group that believe it can result in image degradation. I think they are right and now only use a protective filter when shooting in uncontrolled environments.

Regards,

[Scott Auerbach]

Originally Posted by Mark Williams

Brian,

You made a good point. I had to exchange 3 top of the line UV filters before I got a satisfactory one. I know many here advocate always having some type of filter on to protect the lens but there is also a small group that believe it can result in image degradation. I think they are right and now only use a protective filter when shooting in uncontrolled environments.

Regards,

I came through the RIT photography program back in the 1970s. One of my professors said "why would you spend $500 for a lens, then stick a $10 piece of glass in front of it for all your photos?" Since then, I only use them as clear lenscaps. I'll keep them on during setup, then take them off to actually shoot.

With the 1/3" cameras, the depth of field problem is so extreme that everything has to be surgically clean or you'll see dust/flare spots/etc. I do have 4x4s and a matte box for when filters are necessary, but otherwise I shoot naked. In my experience, the problem is less one of unsharpness (it's not that hard to make optically flat glass) as a serious drop in contrast. Lower-con images look less sharp even if they're not.

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by Scott Auerbach

...With the 1/3" cameras, the depth of field problem is so extreme that everything has to be surgically clean or you'll see dust/flare spots/etc. I do have 4x4s and a matte box for when filters are necessary, but otherwise I shoot naked. In my experience, the problem is less one of unsharpness (it's not that hard to make optically flat glass) as a serious drop in contrast. Lower-con images look less sharp even if they're not.

Although I've always been an advocate of using protective filters - and I swear by Heliopan or anything that's Schott-type glass - I'm also seriously considering the HVX's softness being made worse by any extra glass in front of the lens. It makes me wince to think that I might be losing any definition or color contrast but it's a worthwhile theory.

The other thing that has my curiosity is how much detail/color might be lost when using either the built-in ND filters or using external - either 72mm screw-in or matte-box type and, which gets better results.

I'll be testing all this later this week and I'll start another thread with results and sample images.

[Mark Sasahara]

Originally Posted by Brian Sargent

I think I've found the fly in the ointment. According to this simulation, the loss of resolution can be attributed to the use of B+W UV filters


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/l...ges/120958.jpg

That's frickin' hilarious!

[Mark Sasahara]

Scott, greetings Brother. I'm an RIT grad too. PPHL (photoIllustration) Class of ' 85, when did you graduate?

Who said that, Les Stoebel, or Terry Bolman?

[Ash Greyson]

Originally Posted by Mark Sasahara

Ash, even with the Varicam's larger chips at 720, vs H1 1/3" chips at 1080?

So, then how would the H1 stack up against an F900, or the HDX900 (is that out yet?), or another 1080 camera? Probably not better, but close enough to be good enough?

Dont get me wrong, I would generally always choose the larger chip camera, just wanted to point out that resolution-wise, the 1/3" CCD stuff can come close.

I would not buy a 2/3" CCD camera right now, I rent them as needed. I suspect you will start seeing larger CCDs in the next couple years in the $50K and under range.



ash =o)

[Mark Sasahara]

Ash, yes, I think most folks would go with the larger cam whenever possible, but it is kind of amazing that the H1 comes so close.

I need something for the lower end jobs. Those clients can't afford to rent a larger camera, so I have to own something that will be at least adequate. All the present prosumer HD/HDV cams have one, or more flaws that make them, in my mind, a bad choice. I can't afford a larger camera at the moment, plus I think the next iteration of the Varicam will be out soon and there are some other cameras that look promising.

So in the mean time, I'm stuck.

[Brian Sargent]

Hey Mark

You've got to have a sense of humor to survive those Rochester winters. The city provided everyone who grew up there w/a pair of 30Y glasses so we wouldn't forget what the sun looked like. Of course up there we revolved around a big yellow box!

[Mark Sasahara]

I loved Rochester. I really liked driving around some of outlying areas and shooting 8x10 landscapes on color neg. The good ole days. I moved from Rochester to Vermont to be a newspaper photog for ten years, I can deal with winter. I just get suicidal. No worries.

Brian, are you an alum too, or a resident of that fair city?

I'm still a Kodak Man.

[Brian Sargent]

I didn't go to RIT- but my brother did. Now he's an engineer for Toyota. I went the art school flunky route and decided I needed to learn a real skill and took up photo on my own. Now I'm trying to get up to speed on audio/video. Its a pretty steep curve for someone who isn't predisposed to the math side of the equation. I think I'm better at the storytelling aspect, but I figure if you don't know how to produce content, you'll just be a bystander and have no say at all.

Rochester was a great place to grow up though. Still go back to see the family every so often. I've lived in Brooklyn for 10+years now.

[Mark Sasahara]

Well neighbor, I've been here in Queens just a little over two years.

I sucked at math, still do and there's just so much BS to wade through with video. Ugh.

[Brian Sargent]

Ha! Well, if you ever want to meet up for drinks at the Beer Garden, let me know.

BS

[Cees Mutsaers]

I have the feeling this one is not exposed well. There is no detail in the blacks (can not even see the buttons on his shirt). Maybe you just put the pedestal too low ?

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Taken from the same studio setup as the other scene. This is where the HVX show's it's softness. Look at details on the table lenses and camera bodies and definition starts to fall off. Obviously it's not important to have fine details in this clip, but this is where distant landscape details would suffer from not being more prominent in the framing.